This could've gone into the Trump's a Giant Piece of Shit thread or whatever, but I decided it encompassed another thing I wanted to talk about, mainly: the right aren't the only people who have a beef with you, media.

You may have heard that recently, Michelle Wolf of Daily Show fame was the comedian invited to speak at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. I've had beefs with this dinner before, like the time Obama was sitting there cracking jokes and the press laughed while District 3 (Baltimore) was literally on fire from riots not that far away. It's an exercise in orgasmic self-indulgence that I believe should be put out to pasture along with a whole other bunch of navel-gazing decorum I would ban if I ever became president.

Michelle Wolf said a lot of crude things, almost like she's a comedian or something, and the right predictably erupted with outrage like they're the purveyors of civility right now with their Trumps and Moores. Of particular note was some shade thrown at Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who sat right next to her, where Wolfe said something to the effect of "she has such perfect smokey eyes, I think she gets it from the makeup. Or grinds up lies and uses them. Probably the lies" after calling her a character from the Handmaiden's Tale (I haven't watched it) that's apparently synonymous with an Uncle Tom.

What was rather surprising was the journalists and media types siding with Sanders on this, apparently forgetting that (a) Michelle Wolf is not a journalist and (b) She's also not wrong, really, and (c) Of the two of them, Sanders by far is the greater evil. Particularly defensive was Maggie Haberman, who acted like Sanders was Jesus Christ being unjustly crucified as she sat there and took what she righteously deserved.

But I wonder if some of this isn't because for all that the right is like "This is the leftist media at its worst!", Wolf had something to say about the media that I think a lot of people would agree with, calling them out for hating Trump but always being ready to profit off him, specifically calling him "The monster you built". I understand why Haberman and her ilk have to brown-nose, they lose their access if they piss off the WH, though it makes them no less cowardly, but it's surprising to see some of the people leaping to Sanders' defense on this.

But I'm interested in a discussion about this particular point of the media, things like the NYT stringing out their collection of files against Hillary Clinton for months on end for profit, the media's simultaneous loathing yet promotion of Trump, partisanship over reporting, etc. Less interested in the "Media lies because I trust nobody but the other ideologically aligned media" discussion, here, more interested in the fact that it seems like some people in the media that defensed Wolf might agree with my idea that the media's frankly been too civil and unwilling to engage in the face of Trump. Thoughts?

To the media: Is she wrong? Despite what Trump may say, you people LOVE him. Or at least you love the ratings he brings in with his buffoonery. Ms. Wolf just pointed a mirror at you and you didn't like the reflection staring back.

To the right-wingers lambasting her:

This picture sums up why you have no leg to stand on here

Trump announced his candidacy in June of 2015. For just short of three years you have been applauding Trump as he insults people, justifying it with "he speaks his mind and doesn't pull his punches". You started a political movement and elected a thoroughly unqualified person to the highest office in the land because he "triggered the libs". You still, to this day (as in the first of May, 2018), applaud Trump's insulting tweets when your last several tweets are a treatise on how uncouth and unprofessional insults are.

She's chuckling awkwardly at her own jokes when they fall flat and the room goes silent, and emphasizes parts that really didn't need emphasis.

And then there's lines like this:

I actually really like Sarah. I think she’s very resourceful. Like, she burns facts, and then she uses the ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Like, maybe she’s born with it; maybe it’s lies.

It’s probably lies.

"Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies"? "Lies" doesn't rhyme with "Maybelline", it's not a funny word, and it's not shocking in context because she's been calling Sanders a liar the whole time. What the heck was the thought process there?

As to the hypocrisy involved in Donald Trump supporters getting mad at Wolf for being insulting and crass, Katherine Timpf's opinion largely mirrors my own:

The way it appears now is that when Trump makes fun of Mika’s face, the Right says “Chill, it’s just a joke!” and the Left says it’s an outrage. When Michelle Wolf says Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s eyeshadow is made of lies, the Left says “Chill, it’s just a joke!” and the Right says it’s an outrage. There’s certainly an element of hypocrisy on this issue on both sides, but there’s also one difference: Michelle Wolf is a comedian, not the leader of the free world, so she does deserve a bit more leeway when it comes to making jokes.

Were Wolf’s jokes mean? Absolutely they were. But this was supposed to be a roast, and roasts aren’t supposed to be nice. She made fun of Sanders, sure, but she made fun of a lot of people, including CNN and the liberal media. (For example: “The most useful information on CNN is when Anthony Bourdain tells me where to eat noodles.” And “I know there’s a lot of people that want me to talk about Russia and Putin and collusion, but I’m not going to do that because there’s also a lot of liberal media here. And I’ve never really wanted to know what any of you look like when you orgasm.”) It’s also important to note that when Sanders was asked about Trump’s “face-lift” comments during a press conference, she didn’t express any outrage — in fact, she said that the comments showed that the president was a “fighter.”

You don’t have to like all of her jokes, and you can think that some of them were too mean. You cannot, however, only have a problem with jokes when they’re making fun of the other side and consider yourself to be logically sound.

10

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Mostly just thumbs-upping because you posted an article I had already read and thought about posting. NR seems to be the only rightwing new source I can stand these days, and even then it's only sometimes when it's the more intellectual pieces or ones that aren't just partisan bashing.

But yeah, it's pretty cringy and lends itself better to text than viewing. I could've done a better bit, but then, I don't think they let you up there when you have a habit of punctuating every other word with "fuck"

Are you aware that none of this matters and you're all being played by people with far more money and power than you can imagine who use pointless drama to manipulate your base human tribalistic instincts and your love of short-term gratification received from online socialization to turn you against each other and distract you while they slowly consolidate their power?

Windy wrote:Are you aware that none of this matters and you're all being played by people with far more money and power than you can imagine who use pointless drama to manipulate your base human tribalistic instincts and your love of short-term gratification received from online socialization to turn you against each other and distract you while they slowly consolidate their power?

Are you aware that none of that matters because we're all going to die anyway and every sign we left behind of our existence will fall to dust and be forgotten, making it impossible to tell we ever existed? And even if we do figure out immortality and warp travel and all that, eventually the universe will expand to the point where energy is spread so thin that stars can no longer ignite and eventually matter itself can no longer exist, leaving nothing behind but a dead empty void for the rest of eternity?

8

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Windy wrote:Are you aware that none of this matters and you're all being played by people with far more money and power than you can imagine who use pointless drama to manipulate your base human tribalistic instincts and your love of short-term gratification received from online socialization to turn you against each other and distract you while they slowly consolidate their power?

Oh man, if only we were so wise and able to see through the veil of power and wealth like you can. Maybe our country would realize on both sides of the aisle that we're deeply dissatisfied with the way things are and start voting in puritan ideologues to try to button mash the system into--oh. Right.

Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:Oh man, if only we were so wise and able to see through the veil of power and wealth like you can. Maybe our country would realize on both sides of the aisle that we're deeply dissatisfied with the way things are and start voting in puritan ideologues to try to button mash the system into--oh. Right.

Alternately, maybe we'd realize that if the rich and powerful are deliberately trying to set left and right against each other for personal gain at our expense as Windy suggests, resolving to keep fighting each other but harder this time is a puzzling way to react to that revelation.

0

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:Oh man, if only we were so wise and able to see through the veil of power and wealth like you can. Maybe our country would realize on both sides of the aisle that we're deeply dissatisfied with the way things are and start voting in puritan ideologues to try to button mash the system into--oh. Right.

Alternately, maybe we'd realize that if the rich and powerful are deliberately trying to set left and right against each other for personal gain at our expense as Windy suggests, resolving to keep fighting each other but harder this time is a puzzling way to react to that revelation.

Oh, I don't disagree with the overall concept, just the idea that everyone's a sheople that doesn't see the world like it truly is. People clearly get it, I think most people would acknowledge that the US is not that far removed from an oligarchy. Why at least half the people think putting corruption directly in charge of the system is going to fix things, I don't know, but I suppose that's a tale as old as democracy has been around.

As for the elitism thing, I mean...that was part of the roast, wasn't it? People think the media is out of touch because things like that WH correspondence dinner and people working for Fox/CNN/MSNBC hanging out with presidents all the time...That conservative media couple that was outraged--OUTRAGED--at Michelle Wolfe and walked out of the event in a huff...though not so outraged they couldn't join the MSNBC afterparty afterwards. Yeah, everyone gets it.

Windy wrote:Are you aware that none of this matters and you're all being played by people with far more money and power than you can imagine who use pointless drama to manipulate your base human tribalistic instincts and your love of short-term gratification received from online socialization to turn you against each other and distract you while they slowly consolidate their power?

Promote Project Exile and Operation Ceasefire.Encourage the development and creation of co-op run companies and corporations.

Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:Oh man, if only we were so wise and able to see through the veil of power and wealth like you can. Maybe our country would realize on both sides of the aisle that we're deeply dissatisfied with the way things are and start voting in puritan ideologues to try to button mash the system into--oh. Right.

Alternately, maybe we'd realize that if the rich and powerful are deliberately trying to set left and right against each other for personal gain at our expense as Windy suggests, resolving to keep fighting each other but harder this time is a puzzling way to react to that revelation.

Oh, I don't disagree with the overall concept, just the idea that everyone's a sheople that doesn't see the world like it truly is. People clearly get it, I think most people would acknowledge that the US is not that far removed from an oligarchy. Why at least half the people think putting corruption directly in charge of the system is going to fix things, I don't know, but I suppose that's a tale as old as democracy has been around.

I think some wire got crossed here. Let's back up.

1. Windy asserted that the rich and powerful are secretly setting left and right against each other for profit and lulz.

2. Via sarcasm, you argued that people get that and that's why they're electing ideologues.

Right so far? Well, my objection to that argument is this: if the rich and powerful are setting the left and the right at each other's throats for profit, then electing ideologues (i.e. the people who want to fight that war the hardest) would be the stupidest thing each side could possibly do, because fighting between left and right is exactly what the rich and powerful wanted in the first place. If we're all Spartacus, then our real enemy isn't the other gladiators--it's Crassus up in the stands.

As such, I'd argue that the opposite is true: the fact that people are redoubling their commitment to partisan bickering by nominating and electing ideologues demonstrates that they don't think they're being tricked into their hate of the other side. Rather, they think the frightening illusions that our hypothetical puppetmasters have created for them are quite real indeed.

0

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Crimson847 wrote:Right so far? Well, my objection to that argument is this: if the rich and powerful are setting the left and the right at each other's throats for profit, then electing ideologues (i.e. the people who want to fight that war the hardest) would be the stupidest thing each side could possibly do, because fighting between left and right is exactly what the rich and powerful wanted in the first place. If we're all Spartacus, then our real enemy isn't the other gladiators--it's Crassus up in the stands.

You're not asking the right questions. Regardless of what Trump supporters tell themselves, it's not about fixing things, it's about revenge. But we'd all hate each other even without any manipulation just because of our tribalistic instincts. We should be thanking our manipulators for giving our lives a purpose, even if it's only to serve their interests.

Doodle wrote:That conservative media couple that was outraged--OUTRAGED--at Michelle Wolfe and walked out of the event in a huff...

Breaking News: Someone got outraged at something in 2018.

I hope you realize the only reason Trump got elected was because he got roasted at this thing last time. Now he's going to get elected again and it's all Michelle's fault.

Doodle wrote:Oh, I don't disagree with the overall concept, just the idea that everyone's a sheople that doesn't see the world like it truly is. People clearly get it, I think most people would acknowledge that the US is not that far removed from an oligarchy. Why at least half the people think putting corruption directly in charge of the system is going to fix things, I don't know, but I suppose that's a tale as old as democracy has been around.

No, people don't get it. You, for example, are emotionally invested in this tribalistic bickering, which you wouldn't do if you really got it.

Actually, the bickering here is less partisan than damn near anywhere I've seen. Sure, there are partisans, and people have their leans, but at least we discuss. Partisan bickering tends to be one side screaming that Trump is raping the world and that Obama was the best president since FDR while the other screams that Trump is the bestest president in history and that everyone's just too blind to see it.

Anyways, Crimson, I guess the point I was making before was more in line with Windy accusing everyone on the board of being a partisan shill who's just too blind to see the man behind the curtain. But I don't know. Maybe it sounds weirdly optimistic, but where partisanship is concerned, I've thought lately that there's an element of shallowness to it. Maybe it's because I lived in a more mixed area, but I tend to think it's kind of like a football game in which we care about these things but also don't really. It's become more identity than something people are willing to go to war over. People of differing ideologies get along just fine IRL. At least, maybe I'm just hoping that that's real, that the number of people that consider the other side the enemy of the country is more virtue signaling (not really the term I'm looking for, but the closest I could come to it) than serious.

And I should point out, Fox spent a lot of time being against Trump when he first started running, only getting behind him once the primary was all but over and they needed to make that money, and he still won the primary. The people elected the disruption candidate anyways even though he ended up being somehow more corrupt than Clinton. So I do think that both sides see and despise the corruption in the system, we just disagree about where the problem is.

Weird seeing the guy who went "I'm certainly done giving a shit about this country or its politics" and "Oh no Trump is literally murdering democracy" talk about how there's no partisan bickering or hyperbolic fear mongering.